Yesterday saw 1,000 ex-generals meet in a Taipei's Ta-an Park to rail against President Chen Shui-bian (
Some people might think that this is a triumph of free speech -- and it certainly is worth pointing out that such a meeting would not have been allowed when Hau sat atop the greasy pole. But the meeting forces us to address again a question that seems to be at the heart of the conundrum that is Taiwanese liberal democracy: Where is the line between tolerance and irresponsibility?
These were 1,000 ex-generals, remember, not bank managers or schoolteachers, nothing so innocuous. A thousand men who until quite recently were supposed to lead the armed forces in providing security for the nation. Yet it is quite obvious from their wish for "territorial integration" that protecting Taiwan is the last thing on their minds.
It is hard to imagine anything like this happening anywhere else, no matter how tolerant the society or entrenched its democratic values. Imagine 1,000 retired US generals (to make the analogy fit, you would also have to imagine they were all foreign-born Muslims) meeting on the Mall in Washington to demand that George W. Bush cease punitive measures against al-Qaeda.
American society would be aghast. Why aren't we?
Some might say that people like has-been Hau simply don't matter anymore. But the problem is that the sentiments expressed by Hau and endorsed by his audience are almost certainly shared by a significant number of still-serving officers.
The military was, after all, simply an arm of the Chinese Nationalist Party, rather than the government, until that party lost power in 2000 -- and some readers will remember the reluctance of many senior officers to serve under a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government. The military is perhaps the last secure bastion of the Chiang era's reunificationist sentiments, alien as they are to the majority of Taiwanese.
The very fact that so many retired senior officers can both threaten the president and show sympathy with the goals of Taiwan's enemy suggests that something is still very wrong with the military, despite the last four years of professionalization.
What people say in parks is an issue of free speech -- let Hau and his friends say what they like. But the reflection this cast upon the sentiments of the armed forces is a national security issue and of deep concern to us all. The DPP government has been discussing the issue of new national security legislation for a few years, mainly in response to pan-blue-affiliated civil servants defecting to China. What it wants to do is introduce a system of vetting to assess the trustworthiness of those who are involved with national security. The pan-blues have predictably called this "green terror" -- God forbid that they should ever find out what "green terror" actually would be if it ever happened -- but the system the government wants to put into place is no different from the security clearance systems used in the US and the UK.
This is something that the pan-green majority in the legislature resulting from December's elections will, we hope, speedily address. It might be liberal to tolerate Hau and his ilk, but it is folly to allow disloyalty in the armed forces, and the current don't-ask-don't-tell attitude about sentiment toward reunification and China is simply not good enough. A purge is necessary of both the military and the civil service if Taiwan's sovereignty is to be protected, and we need the legal means to effect this as quickly as possible.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS